originally posted by: Mary Rose
Because the explanation for anomalous coronal heating has been negated?

The explanation came out in 2011, and when it did, I don't remember
any electric sun proponents citing the mainstream science and saying:

"Hey look at this science, the coronal heating is now explained, I guess the sun isn't electric after all"

But now in 2014 as you said the 2011 findings are said to be incorrect and that they don't explain all the coronal heating, so now people want to
point to that and say "electric sun".

My point is, it seems like electric sun people ignore any science which disagrees with their viewpoint (like the 2011 published research), and only
cite science which has unexplained anomalies (like this recent 2014 research on coronal hole heating).

By the way that diagram is not an accurate representation of this issue, because it's just the coronal hole regions mentioned in the recent research.
The rest of the coronal heating may be explained by the type II spicules.

Hopefully the Solar Probe plus satellite set to launch in a few years can make better measurements which can help shed some light on these
mysteries/discrepancies.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
"Hey look at this science, the coronal heating is now explained, I guess the sun isn't electric after all"

I believe the point of the remarks that were made about Alfvénic/Alfvén waves/MHD waves having been reputed by Alfvén himself is that he
took the electricity out of plasma in error, trying to simplify the equations, but science ignored him and kept on using them anyway.

It is very ironic because EU theory champions Alfvén but his outdated equations leave out the electric force.

But now in 2014 as you said the 2011 findings are said to be incorrect and that they don't explain all the coronal heating, so now people want
to point to that and say "electric sun".

No, I don't think it's quite like that.

I think EU advocates are saying we told you already stop using those MHD equations.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
I think EU advocates are saying we told you already stop using those MHD equations.

Wal Thornhill in 2006:

. . . although plasma physicists can see the obvious application of their high-energy laboratory Z-pinches to cosmic phenomena, most seem to
assume the electrical Z-pinch is transitory, like their experiments. So they go on to apply incorrect magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) concepts – such as
“flows,” “jets” and “shocks” to the cosmic phenomena. Magnetohydrodynamics ignores electricity and relies on magnetic fields being
“trapped” in plasma. The “father” of plasma physics, the late Hannes Alfvén, showed decades ago that the concept of “frozen in” magnetic
fields in space plasma is an invalid concept. He called for primary consideration of the electric circuits, which must be present to sustain the
magnetic fields.

In 1970, Hannes Alfvén, the ‘father of plasma physics,’ warned that cosmology was headed into crisis. He was referring to the treatment of
plasma—which makes up about 99.9% of the visible universe—as a magnetizable gas. Alfvén was responsible for the theory, known as
‘magnetohydrodynamics’ or MHD. But he publicly repudiated its use for space plasma in his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech:

“The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of
theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be
wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come.”
—H. Alfvén, Plasma physics, space research and the origin of the solar system, Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1970

But astrophysicists didn’t want to know. MHD made their theoretical work easy compared with the intricate behavior of plasma discovered in attempts
to harness fusion power—the so-called ‘power source of the Sun.’ Their ignorance of the real behavior of plasma was certain to lead to
divergence between theory and reality, just as it did for fusion power.

There has been quite a bit of work on space plasma physics. And today is not 1970.

That MHD is one limiting approximation to the full statistical mechanical/kinetic theory approach is well known. Whether or not it is satisfactory in
any particular regime is experimentally and observationally dependent on the facts of the specific problem, just as the appropriateness of
Navier-Stokes continuum fluid mechanics isn't always appropriate in extreme circumstances as well.

And there are extensions to MHD which include more and more electrical (mobility of charges & E field) effects.

Still, there is a huge practical difference between magnetic and electric properties: there are no mobile magnetic monopoles, whereas there are
mobile carriers of charge of both signs (electrons + protons), as a result in large areas charges will on average move to neutralize electric fields,
but magnetic fields can stay. Which is why the Earth (for instance) has a large scale magnetic dipole but not an electrical one.

Nonetheless, none of this is remotely invalidating other astrophysical/cosmological work on black holes or dark matter or energy which involve clearly
gravitational phenomena. The real universe runs on plasma physics and gravity, with a bit of fusion.

Plasma cosmology supporters therefore dispute the interpretations of evidence for the Big Bang, the time evolution of the cosmos, and even the
expanding universe; their proposals are essentially outside anything considered even plausible in mainstream astrophysics and cosmology.

If you read those wikis you would hopefully come to a similar understanding.

In particular this is one of the mainstream observations which seems to be rejected in plasma cosmology, but there are other discrepancies too:

originally posted by: mbkennel
in large areas charges will on average move to neutralize electric fields, but magnetic fields can stay. Which is why the Earth (for instance) has a
large scale magnetic dipole but not an electrical one.

But the title of the wiki article, "Space physics," leaves out the word "plasma."

Wal Thornhill from 1999:

The CHANDRA X-Ray Observatory is fulfilling its promise. Modern cosmology is being found wanting with every new discovery. The reason is simple.
The universe is governed by the powerful electric force, not gravity. So by detailed imaging in x-rays, Chandra is able to see clearly for the first
time the tell-tale signature of electrical activity in the centres of cosmic powerhouses – supernovae and galactic centres. What will replace
present cosmology? A new PLASMA cosmology. Plasma constitutes 99.999% of the matter in the universe. It is staggering to realise that Big Bang
cosmology is restricted largely to the physics of 0.001% of the universe – solids, liquids and gases on the surface of this planet! And much of the
accepted physics of stars is untestable by experiment.

“The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of
theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be
wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come.”
—H. Alfvén, Plasma physics, space research and the origin of the solar system, Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1970

Space physics, also known as space plasma physics, is the study of plasmas as they occur naturally in the universe.

It's "the study of plasmas as they occur naturally in the universe" whether or not you use "plasma" in the title.

Also, you're citing a quote from Thornhill citing an Alfven quote from 1970 to make implications about cosmology today? A few years ago I watched a
second video lecture series by an astrophysicist named Alex Filippenko, and his first video lecture series made only five years earlier was already
out of date because of rapid advances in the field. So mbkennel is correct:

originally posted by: mbkennel
There has been quite a bit of work on space plasma physics. And today is not 1970.

Thornhill is right about most of the visible universe being
plasma, and mainstream science shares this view. He's also right that scientists make new discoveries in space plasma physics all the time, because
they have deployed new measuring instruments which are collecting new data. But this explains just a few examples of the observational evidence that
contradict the electric sun model:

Dr. Bridgman made some computations on what should be observed with the electric sun model so we can compare the predictions to observation:

we notice that when the electron current reaches sufficient energies to
power the Sun (highlighted), the magnetic field at the surface of the Sun is on the order of 100
Tesla (1,000,000 Gauss) or more. This is particularly interesting in light of the fact that the
observed magnetic fields on the surface of the Sun range from 0.01 Tesla (granulation) to 0.2
Tesla (sunspots) 38 . This is quite a large anomaly (a factor of over 100!) which the Electric Sun
advocates neither mention, nor explain.

In addition, their model predicts that the magnetic field at the orbit of the Earth (1 AU) could
range between 0.1-10 Tesla (1000-100,000 gauss). This too is far stronger than the field actually
measured of a few nano-Tesla (~0.000000005 Tesla). The ES magnetic field value is also far
stronger than the Earth’s magnetic field at the surface (~1/2 gauss). If such a solar magnetic field
existed, it would greatly overpower the terrestrial field and would determine just how our
compasses point. In this case, the vector direction of the solar field would be nearly parallel, or
antiparallel, to the motion of the Earth around the Sun. Compass directions would flip with the
cycle of day and night!

Clearly, the Electric Sun advocates need to go back to the drawing board. Their hypothesis fails
even this simple consistency test which are only a few of the tests that they would need to pass to
be considered even a partially viable theory.

That paper goes on for 48 pages discussing problems with the EU claims of Dr Scott, and Bridgman
says it's only a partial, condensed version because he would have to write a much longer paper to address all the problems fully.

For a long time it was thought that the anomalous multimillion degree temperature in the solar corona resulted from “steady heating”,
therefore, coronal loops at a certain temperature should possess a specific density. However, solar observatory satellites and balloons indicate that
coronal loops are of greater density than previously assumed.

Heliophysicists do not know why the temperature of the corona is millions of degrees hotter than the surface. According to the commonly applied
thermonuclear fusion model, as distance from the Sun’s surface increases the temperature should decrease. Thermal emission mechanics states that
temperature decreases with the square of the distance.

There is a certain amount of confusion when it comes to any theory of solar behavior that does not include electrical activity. Failing to recognize
the fundamental structure of coronal loops and how they correspond to the electromagnetic behavior of Birkeland currents has led to ad hoc mechanisms
designed to preserve the legitimacy of theories whose time has long since passed.

It is common for solar physicists to discuss plasma as an aspect of the Sun, but to do so in a way that makes its electrical nature seem unimportant.
Solar “wind”; “a rain” of charged particles; ionic “impacts”; “clouds of ionized gas”: such terms are meant to convey the inertial
aspects of plasma and reduce it to nothing more than hot gas and dust. The majority of astrophysicists are convinced that electricity is not a factor
when dealing with the Sun, and they tend to decouple its electrical nature from its magnetic behavior.

Electric charges flowing out of the Sun travel along magnetic flux tubes that have only recently been discovered. These “magnetic tornadoes” are
several kilometers wide and allow electric currents to flow directly from the Sun into space—in some cases down into Earths polar regions,
generating visible light, radio waves, and X-rays.

An electric discharge in plasma creates a tube-like magnetic sheath along its axis. If enough charge flows through the circuit, that discharge will
cause the sheath to glow, sometimes creating a number of other sheaths within it. The sheath is called a “double layer.” Double layers form when
positive charges build up in one region of a plasma cloud and negative charges build up nearby. A powerful electric field appears between the two
regions, accelerating charged particles. The electric charges spiral in the magnetic fields, and, as mentioned, they emit X-rays, extreme ultraviolet,
and sometimes gamma rays.

NASA launched the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft On August 25, 1997. From its location at LaGrange point L1, ACE has been analyzing
the solar wind for the last 17 years, providing real-time “space weather” reports about geomagnetic storms. ACE should be able to continue its
mission until 2024, although some instruments are failing. Onboard ACE is one instruments that is still going strong: the Solar Wind Electron Proton
Alpha Monitor (SWEPAM), designed for direct scrutiny of coronal mass ejections (CME), so-called “interplanetary shockwaves” and the solar wind.

One of the more unusual discoveries by ACE is electron depletion in the solar wind due to “backstreaming electrons” that flow into the Sun from
surrounding space. These electrons do not conform to the newest theories about the Sun’s activity, since the conveyance of electric charge is not
considered. Consequently, such discoveries are often referred to as “mysterious” when electrical activity presents itself in unexpected ways.

In the conventional view, the Sun accelerates electrons out and away from its surface through a process akin to amplified sound waves. Referred to as
“p-modes”, they supposedly cause energetic pulsations in the solar photosphere when they “bounce around” the Sun’s interior. When they
travel upward through wave-guides called magnetic flux tubes, they push “hot gas” outward in giant structures called spicules. The spicules rise
thousands of kilometers above the photosphere and carry plasma with them.

As retired Professor Donald Scott wrote: “In order to maintain the double layer above the photosphere that causes almost all the observed properties
of the Sun, a certain ratio of the number of outgoing positive ions to the number of incoming electrons must exist. Quoting from Ralph Juergens: ‘In
a much cited classical review paper of 1929, Irving Langmuir demonstrated that a double sheath (DL) is stable only when the current densities of the
positive-ion and electron flows across [through] it are properly related. The ratio of the electron current into the tuft to the positive-ion current
out of the tuft must equal the square root of the ion mass divided by the electron mass, which is to say: (electron current/ion current)^2 = ion
mass/electron mass = 1836. Thus electron current/ion current = 43.’ So there needs to be a lot more (43 times as many) electrons coming down
through the DL as there are positive ions moving outward. Where do they come from?

“In that same year (1979), Earl Milton composed a paper titled, The Not So Stable Sun, in which he wrote: ‘In order to maintain a stable sheath
between the photosphere and the corona a great many electrons must flow downward through the sheath for each ion which passes upward. The solar gas
shows an increasing percentage of ionized-to-neutral atoms with altitude. Some of the rising neutral atoms become ionized by collision. Some fall back
to the solar surface. The rising ions ascend into the corona where they become the solar wind. The descending gas flows back to the Sun between the
granules – in these channels the electrical field is such that ions straying out from the sides of the photospheric tufts flow sunward, and hence
the electrons flow outward. The presence of these channels is critical to the maintenance of the solar discharge…. Here we have an explanation for
the spicules, huge fountains that spit electrons high into the corona.’

“In my opinion, this also explains what causes sunspots. Wherever the #p/#e ratio is not maintained, the DL collapses – the photospheric tufts
disappear. So we get a spot in that location.”

In an Electric Universe, the Sun is an anode, or positively charged terminal. The cathode is an invisible “virtual cathode”, called the
heliopause, at the farthest limit of the Sun’s coronal discharge, millions of kilometers from its surface. This is the double layer that isolates
the Sun’s plasma cell from the galactic plasma that surrounds it. A positive space-charge sheath near the Sun accelerates positive ions, principally
protons, to form the solar wind. Within that heliospheric volume, the implied current is sufficient to power the Sun.

. . . In an Electric Universe, the Sun is an anode, or positively charged terminal. The cathode is an invisible “virtual cathode”, called the
heliopause, at the farthest limit of the Sun’s coronal discharge, millions of kilometers from its surface.

In today's Thunderbolts Project Picture of the Day, Stephen Smith points out that the standard model for cosmology only allows for two things
governing the cosmos:

Moving masses

Heat

Electric charge is considered negligible.

Instead of calling charged particles streaming from stars like the sun an electric current, they're called a "wind." Instead of describing ions
accelerated by a magnetic field to be collimated transmissions of electrical energy through space, they're called "jets." Instead of calling changes
in the density and speed of charged particles "double layers," which suggests electrical properties, they're called "shock waves."

He points out that what the standard model calls " supernovae" - stars whose thermonuclear processes have reached a critical stage - are in the EU
model exploding double layers. In the EU model exploding double layers are also the term for

stars that have shed their outer shells of gas and
dust, emitting x-rays and extremely high frequency ultraviolet light.

One recent example of that view is a press release from the Chandra X-Ray Observatory website. According to the article, a
13-million-light-year-long surge of galaxies, gas, and dark matter is streaming into the center of the galaxy cluster shown at the top of the page.
That is not the most “remarkable” aspect of the occurrence, however. MACSJ0717 represents the collision of four separate galaxy clusters over five
billion light-years from Earth that will eventually become one exceptionally massive cluster.

The region is thought to be incredibly hot because the molecules of gas and dust are crashing into each other, resulting in x-rays flashing out from
the blue color-coded regions. Cheng-Jiun Ma from the University of Hawaii, one of the authors of a paper about the observation, described the cluster
integration as a strictly mechanical phenomenon: “Since each of these collisions releases energy in the form of heat, MACSJ0717 has one of the
highest temperatures ever seen in such a system.”

Several computer simulations have been developed over the years so that what is unobservable “billions of light-years” away can be modeled on the
desktop. It comes as no surprise that the observations appear to match the simulations. The same ideas used to construct the computer algorithms are
also in the minds of those working with the instruments. Building a device that is designed to see what has been simulated is how modern science
works. Mathematical formulae make both possible.

Perhaps the lack of knowledge regarding electricity in space can account for the opinion that gases colliding produce x-ray and other energetic
emissions. After all, perception comes through training and education, so without exposure to the theories of Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfvén
regarding the behavior of electricity flowing through plasma no perception of its behavior can exist in the mind’s eye.

Alfvén said: “The cosmical plasma physics of today . . .is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a
laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulas which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong . . . several of the basic concepts on which
theories of cosmical plasmas are founded are not applicable to the condition prevailing in the cosmos. They are ‘generally accepted’ by most
theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods; and it is only the plasma itself which does not ‘understand’
how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them. . .”

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.